Historic doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte. London, 1819, 8vo.
This tract has since been acknowledged by Archbishop Whately[566] and
reprinted. It is certainly a paradox: but differs from most of those in my
list as being a joke, and a satire upon the reasoning of those who cannot
receive narrative, no matter what the evidence, which is to them utterly
improbable _a priori_. But had it been serious earnest, it would not have
been so absurd as many of those which I have brought forward. The next on
the list is not a joke.
The idea of the satire is not new. Dr. King,[567] in the dispute on the
genuineness of Phalaris, proved with humor that Bentley did not write his
own dissertation. An attempt has lately been made, for the honor of Moses,
to prove, {247} without humor, that Bishop Colenso did not write his own
book. This is intolerable: anybody who tries to use such a weapon without
banter, plenty and good, and of form suited to the subject, should get the
drubbing which the poor man got in the Oriental tale for striking the
dervishes with the wrong hand.
The excellent and distinguished author of this tract has ceased to live. I
call him the Paley of our day: with more learning and more purpose than his
predecessor; but perhaps they might have changed places if they had changed
centuries. The clever satire above named is not the only work which he
published without his name. The following was attributed to him, I believe
rightly: "Considerations on the Law of Libel, as relating to Publications
on the subject of Religion, by John Search." London, 1833, 8vo. This tract
excited little attention: for those who should have answered, could not.
Moreover, it wanted a prosecution to call attention to it: the fear of
calling such attention may have prevented prosecutions. Those who have read
it will have seen why.
The theological review elsewhere mentioned attributes the pamphlet of John
Search on blasphemous libel to Lord Brougham. This is quite absurd: the
writer states points of law on credence where the judge must have spoken
with authority. Besides which, a hundred points of style are decisive
between the two. I think any one who knows Whately's writing will soon
arrive at my conclusion. Lord Brougham himself informs me that he has no
knowledge whatever of the pamphlet.
It is stated in _Notes and Queries_ (3 S. xi. 511) that Search was answered
by the Bishop of Ferns[568] as S. N., with {248} a rejoinder by Blanco
White.[569] These circumstances increase the probability that Whately was
written against and for.